THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY v. Issue a Writ of Mandamus/Order/Direction directing
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India arts. 226, 227
Key paragraphs
- Para 44. In the light of the judgment of Apex Court in the case of L. CHANDRA KUMAR v. UNION OF INDIA1, where the Seven Judge Bench of the Apex Court has held that the Tribunal is the Court of first instance in cases of the…
- Para 55. Reserving liberty to the petitioner to approach the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal for redressal of the grievance, the petition stands disposed. Ordered accordingly. Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE SJK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 21/CT: BHK 1 AIR 1997 SC 1125
Judgment
SRI. PARSHURAM, S/O VASANAPPA, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS RESIDING AT E/63, GEDDALAMARI TANDA, YADGIRI, KARNATAKA - 585 291, REGISTRATION NUMBER - 241031573. ALSO AT NO.40/1, BANGALORE MAHANAGAR PALIKE HBCS LAYOUT, 2ND STAGE, CHANDRA LAYOUT, BENGALURU - 560 040. (BY SMT. PREETHI G., ADVOCATE) AND: KARNATAKA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, UDAYOGA SOUDHA, BENGALURU - 560 001. (BY SRI. SUNIL KUMAR H., ADVOCATE) …PETITIONER …RESPONDENT THE W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:12410 WP No. 5593 of 2025 RESPONDENT REPRESENTATION DATED 13.02.2025 (ANNX-H AND H1). CONSIDER THE TO PETITIONERS THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA ORAL ORDER The petitioner is before this Court, seeking the following prayers: "a. b. respondent Issue a Writ of Mandamus/Order/Direction directing the Petitioner's to consider representation Dated: 13.02.2025 (Annexure-H and H1). Issue any other relief/s as this Hon'ble Court deems fit in the facts and circumstances of this case including costs, in the interests of justice and equity."
#2. Heard Smt. Preethi G., learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri. Sunil Kumar H., learned counsel appearing for the respondent and have perused the material on record.
#3. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent would submit that the representation of the petitioner has met its consideration and has been communicated to the candidate as well. The remedy to the petitioner for the consideration of - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:12410 WP No. 5593 of 2025 the representation even is before the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal. Now that representation is considered and rejected, the jurisdiction to answer the contentions of the petitioner would lie only with the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal.
#4. In the light of the judgment of Apex Court in the case of L. CHANDRA KUMAR v. UNION OF INDIA1, where the Seven Judge Bench of the Apex Court has held that the Tribunal is the Court of first instance in cases of the kind that is now projected in the case at hand.
#5. Reserving liberty to the petitioner to approach the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal for redressal of the grievance, the petition stands disposed. Ordered accordingly. Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE SJK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 21/CT: BHK 1 AIR 1997 SC 1125
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.